Pages

Thursday, July 05, 2012

Jimmy Carter: "Republicans are Sinners!" (5th most hated review)

Blogs are subjective by definition, so I think I'll skip Christopher Hitchen's god is Not Great, which should be next on my list of my ten least-popular.  This for two reasons: (a) We've had quite a few New Atheist books on the list already, and enough posts on that subject lately, too, and (b) I can't find it.  I checked all the two-star reviews, and it wasn't there: was the book so bad, that it only deserved one star?  170 people thought so, and I don't think I'll wade through that stunted forest in search of my little alder tonight. 

We have extra reviews to burn, anyway.

So here's one of the few political reviews that made either top ten or bottom ten.  And the voting, in fact, was surprisingly close.  This review is a few years old, which has the merit of showing, in retrospect, how absurd Carter's dire concerns really were. 

Jimmy Carter, Our Endangered Values

 (*) 75 + / 81 -


If you don't remember why Jimmy Carter was voted out of office so emphatically, read this book. It's not that he is wrong all the time. It's that he clearly thinks he's not only right, but righteous, and that those who disagree with him are unholy along with deluded. If Carter were not a politician, he would be the kind of preacher who says "we have sinned," when he really means "you."

One of Carter's chief bogeymen in this book is the people he calls "fundamentalists." Indeed, one reviewer implies that those who dislike this book will be mainly "fundamentalists" who "want our country to become a theocracy," along with "rabid Republicans who attack anything democratic." I am neither. In fact, in decades of working with conservative Christians of many denominations, I am not sure I have heard anyone advocate theocracy. Carter, however, argues that Christian theocrats were a key element in the coalition that voted Bush into power. Worse, it seems these wackos see it as their "personal responsibility" to instigate war leading to Armageddon in the Middle East!

I find it deeply irresponsible for a former president to represent his political opponents in such a uncharitable and divisive way (And he wonders where civility in politics went!) While it may be possible to find some nutty Republican who truly thinks like this -- though I haven't, so far -- so one can probably also find seedy characters who voted for Carter. (Not to mention among his friends, like that thug Yasser Arafat.) But to write a book that will be naively accepted as Gospel in many circles abroad "explaining" American foreign policy in this absurd manner is remarkably unstatesman and reckless. The fact is, regime change in Iraq was US policy already under Bill Clinton. Most leading Democrats spoke in favor of overthrowing Saddam. Carter is free to disagree, but to publicly accuse the opposing party of invading Iraq to bring about the end of the world, is not merely uncharitable, it is daft.

I know the image Carter paints of the "religious right" will be attractive to many readers -- looking at reviews on Amazon, it is obvious that is one of the book's great selling points. But ask yourself, on what evidence are you assuming the worst about so large a portion of your countrymen? As someone who not only grew up in that sub-culture, but has interacted with conservative Christians from dozens of denominations, I say he is wrong. And I challenge anyone to provide reliable demographic data to support his implied claim that a sizable percentage of Christians favor war in the Middle East in order to fulfill end times scenarios. I have heard NO ONE say that.

Carter also has the gall to blame Bush for the threat North Korea poses in East Asia. Actually, he admits that a "strong argument might be made on both sides." What two sides? On the one hand, the Kim family co-op, the communist regime that invaded the South, killing millions, tortured or murdered every Christian it got its hands on, blew up a civilian airplane in Burma, kidnapped people at random off beaches in Japan, tunnels under the DMZ, launches missiles over Japan, points others at Seoul, and easily fooled Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton into thinking it closed its nuke program down. Carter admits that a case might be made that this North Korea is to blame for the problems on the Korean peninsula! But he, himself, does not make that case.

Who stands in the opposite scale of Carter's moral equation? The US -- which spent blood and treasure to defend South Korea, allowing it its present freedom and prosperity? He refers instead it seems to the evil Bush administration. And what crime has Bush committed in Korea? He concluded that Carter's deal with the Kim regime was a sham. Kim accepted all the goodies we offered, but did not quite discontinue his nuclear program. Now that the shell game is doubtful, Bush insists that other countries in the area -- and in range of Kim's missiles -- be involved in talks on de-fanging the beast. It seems this president doesn't want a repeat of Carter's earlier possibly potemkin deal: for some strange reason, he is leery of gentlemen's agreements with tyrants and terrorists. While Carter was praising the intelligence of Kim and the beauty of his wife (who didn't vote for Bush, after all), Christians and other non-conformists were being used as human guinea pigs in North Korean prisons.

Pardon the sarcasm. Carter may intend well. But before he lectures the rest of us about morality, he badly needs to examine his own actions. As scholar Joshua Muravchik pointed out, Carter is habitually charitable towards despots like Kim, Arafat, Tito, Castro, and Ceausescu. He just draws the line at the GOP, it seems.

I am not in favor of theocracy, and will be happy to praise democrats for positive foreign policy ideas. (I studied at the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, after all!) But I am so glad Jimmy Carter was voted out of office. It is no longer his job to conduct foreign policy. In fact, it is his job NOT to continue running his own amateur one-man state department, undermining official US policy, writing letters to foreign leaders telling them to oppose US policy, and creating misinformation and ill-will towards Americans abroad. Read this book, and find out why the American people had the good sense to send this ex-president packing; and why he should go packing again. Perhaps he should go to New Orleans and build houses.

11 comments:

Crude said...

One thing I've noticed - anecdotal stuff here - is that there's a difference between preachy liberal Christians and preachy conservative Christians.

Preachy conservative Christians will engage in their act by way of quote, usually bible quote, if they want to lecture on their approval or disapproval of something. It can be taken out of context, it can be an exaggerated interpretation, but the point is they lecture by quote.

Preachy liberal Christians will just flat out tell you what Christ would think. And I always find this a lot more jarring than the bible quote move, even if both are pretty annoying. (The one bible quote liberal Christians I've encountered seem to like is 'let he without sin cast the first stone', and 'go forth and sin no more' is always, always omitted.)

Doc Johnny said...

George W Bush was not my favorite president. But one thing he has done that is a lot better than Mr. Carter is that he knows once he is in the back seat, let the driver drive.

Brian Barrington said...

Crude, I think the full quote is: “And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”

You left out the bit about Jesus not condemning her.

Crude said...

You left out the bit about Jesus not condemning her.

Thanks! Yes, Jesus does not stone her. He tells her to go, and sin no more.

Crude said...

David,

This is a bit off-topic, but I thought you may be interested in this video re: PZ Myers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mLHdTsmPc

David B Marshall said...

Thanks, Crude. Yes, I watched it yesterday, then searched around for a transcript -- I have PZ in my sights, if time comes available, and he hasn't completely self-destructed before I have time to write an expose / rebuttal.

I also watched a couple of ThunderfOOt's videos, yesterday -- one attacking the stupidity of some creationist who looked like he was about 20 years old (really, so much energy going into mocking a kid), the other a video of him flying jerkily among mountain peaks on a nanolight or something, accompanied by music that didn't quite capture the beauty of his surroundings. I'm always inclined to cut extra slack for someone who loves mountains, though.

B.R. said...

"I also watched a couple of ThunderfOOt's videos, yesterday -- one attacking the stupidity of some creationist who looked like he was about 20 years old (really, so much energy going into mocking a kid)..."

What does his age have to do with it? If he really thinks that a giant flood eroded the Grand Canyon in five minutes, then he deserves all the mockery he can get. Besides, if he's twenty, then he should already know better. That he doesn't is his responsibility for not educating himself.

David B Marshall said...

BR: Sorry, I don't think much of adults who subject kids to public ridicule. Nor do I think ridiculing the worst arguments you can find on the other side, is at all impressive, though I know people like Dawkins and Myers (who ought to be able to argue like adults, by now) seem to think this is a brilliant tactic.

Yes, the kid should know better. But also yes, making your point by going after the most ignorant and irrelevant young pup you can find, and then subjecting them to public ridicule, is not in any way impressive, either morally or intellectually, any more than PZ's attack on Thunderfoot was.

I give Avalos and Carrier credit here, anyway -- they do go after real opponents, when they make an argument, whether well or not.

B.R. said...

"Sorry, I don't think much of adults who subject kids to public ridicule."

You're legally an adult when you hit 18. As you said, this guy looks like he's maybe twenty; so unless you're really old, he's not a "kid"(and even if you are old enough to consider 20 year-olds as kids, it doesn't mean everyone else is).

"Nor do I think ridiculing the worst arguments you can find on the other side, is at all impressive, though I know people like Dawkins and Myers (who ought to be able to argue like adults, by now) seem to think this is a brilliant tactic."

How was he even mocking it? All he did, at least in that video, was point out the physical impossibility of the creationist's claims. The title, "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?", is demonstrating that it's because they leave themselves wide open for it. And to be frank, age doesn't matter unless it's say, a dumb twelve year old whose fundamentalist youth pastor pressed him into doing. Idiotic claims deserve to be mocked and ridiculed, and that's why YECs occupy the same nutty niche as geocentrists, flat-earthers, and germ-deniars.

"Yes, the kid should know better. But also yes, making your point by going after the most ignorant and irrelevant young pup you can find, and then subjecting them to public ridicule, is not in any way impressive, either morally or intellectually, any more than PZ's attack on Thunderfoot was."

So? It's not like any other YEC could do a better job. I've done refutations of articles from AIG and ICR, both of which are considered to be the most professional creationist websites around, and their arguments only differ because they use more sophisticated words in their denial of science. The point of the video was to underline the ignorance and absurdity or creationism, and even you can't deny that in that, Thunderf00t succeeded. Not that it's very impressive, of course; smacking down creationism is the easiest and most unimpressive intellectual feat I can think of.

B.R. said...

But, it still has to be done, lest people get false ideas of how reality works and end up like the poor schmuck in the video.

David B Marshall said...

I'm old enough, to think ThunderfOOT is acting like a schmuck in those videos.

If he had gone after Duane Gish or Ken Ham, I'd feel differently.